Baseball can do what they did in the late 80's / early 90's. Play as many games as possible in warm weather / dome sites for the first few weeks of the season. That doesn't mean for example the Sox won't play some April games...they just won't play 16 of them....maybe six. Same for teams like the Tigers, Yankees, Mets, Cubs, Phillies etc.

The teams that would host as much as possible the first two / three weeks would be:

You could also consider playing a few more home games in San Francisco, Cincinnati, Washington, St. Louis and Baltimore.

If the Angels, Astros, Marlins et al complain, "Proud to be Your Bud" can simply tell them, 'this is in the best interests of baseball. It's better for the fans who have to try to sit through 40 degree weather and it's better for the players. Less chance of injury and you'll get a better brand of baseball...'

No guarantees that even in those cities you might not run into some bad conditions, but the odds are even if that happens it won't be as long or as severe as in the Northern / Upper Midwest.

If they STILL complain Buddy-boy can tell them, "here's a check for X millions of dollars to help make up for your 'suffering..."

I tend to think that would alleviate their probelms with this.

It's not written in the Ten Commandments by the way, that MLB HAS to open in early April, for years they didn't open until the middle of the month. The owners certainly have the option to schedule double headers or day/night double headers if they choose to do so and start a few weeks later.

They can also (GOD FORBID!) decide to shorten the season back to 154 games if they wish and actually start the extended post season earlier too.

My point is there are viable options that baseball can take to help the folks who actually make this engine go, the fans, and help the players perform better.

Hard to hit a beach ball let alone a 95 mile an hour fastball when you can't feel your hands. I've tried and I suspect you have as well.

Lip

Imagine how the Rangers felt playing some and being postponed some in Chicago this week.

Chicago is a two-team city. Somebody is going to have to play or at least be scheduled to play in cold weather. It's the same as it's always been. In 1970, I sat through a scheduled double-header on April 12, the first Sunday of the season, and it was quite cold. (As I recall, the Cubs were in Montreal that weekend and Apollo 13 was up in space.) I've read that even the first day the American League played games in 1901, the season didn't start until April 25, and Chicago was the only city in the league where it was dry enough and warm enough to play games.

For that matter, I attended quite a few May White Sox games in my youth when a winter coat failed to keep me sufficiently warm. It is true that a Chicago columnist wrote after the 1975 season that it was inevitable the Sox would leave Chicago before the 1976 season for reasons that included the need to schedule so many April baseball games in Chicago. It isn't true that the White-Sox-hating-conspiring-schedule-makers screwing the White Sox. The issue is their geography.

But you should probably send your unrealistic ideas to the commisioner's office and complain that Bud Selig is an idiot when you get nothing but a form letter in return.

If you're watching the game in your living room hundreds of miles away, it shouldn't be such as big deal.